User talk:31dot/Archive2012
For older conversations, see the pre-admin archive, the 2009 archive, the 2010 archive, and the 2011 archive. If you are responding to a post I left on your talk page, please reply there, to keep the discussion in one location. Xindi incident When you have a moment could you take a look at the Xindi incident reconfirmation? Thing needs at least four more support votes to pass because of it's history. Thanks. - 00:21, January 8, 2012 (UTC) Image policy discussion As you suggested discussing it in more detail, it would be great if you joined Memory Alpha talk:Image use policy#Policy clarification regarding "fanmade" images. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 12:17, January 13, 2012 (UTC) Regarding your comment "I have no means to compel either of you to do so" - actually, you do. You have admin rights (and responsibilities), so if you think that words are no longer enough, you do have other means to stop either me or Archduk3, or both of us, from editing. Having directly been called an "idiot" now on top of all that other shit that has been hurled my way throughout the last two days, I really ask you to at least consider that possibility. In any case, your activity over there is much appreciated. No one else seems to be interested in moderating that stuff. :) -- Cid Highwind 23:24, January 14, 2012 (UTC) :While I can block someone with admin powers, as I understand it I cannot compel them to respect it- I've accidentally blocked myself and was able to undo it. I haven't seen anything to suggest that anyone would disrespect it- but I wanted to be clear with my thoughts. I truly don't want to get to that point with anyone but I will certainly consider it if necessary for any user. --31dot 23:37, January 14, 2012 (UTC) ::I'll gladly sit the rest of the discussion out if Cid does as well. I don't mind if it's while I am, or he is, blocked or not, and I've already said I'll abide by any blocked placed on me, provided it's explained. There currently is no requirement for more than one admin to intervene right now, so do what you think is best. - 23:46, January 14, 2012 (UTC) :31dot, I see no need to "sit out" that whole discussion as suggested by Archduk3. A distinction needs to be made between the on-topic part consisting of policy suggestions, questions on how a specific suggestion would affect existing material, hopefully the answers to those questions, pointing out misconceptions of others about my suggestions, etc. - and the off-topic part of weird accusations and insults. I will continue the former and will let you or any other admin that wants to handle it decide who's to blame and eventually to be "punished" for the latter. Of course, I would post less frequently if more people than just one and a half others got involved, and if the discussion became more decent and less personal - perhaps the amount of moderation by others needs to be increased. Should you decide that blocking me is a correct way of dealing with things, then I would abide in any case. I would complain later if the block is not properly explained, though. ;) -- Cid Highwind 00:09, January 15, 2012 (UTC) Image uploads MediaWiki:Successfulupload may be the solution to the problem, see w:tardis:MediaWiki:Successfulupload. I don't know if that would work with the licenses "turned off" as they are though. - 00:02, February 2, 2012 (UTC) :Something like that could be helpful, either a new one or resurrecting that one. That one was a bit before my time so I'm not familiar with it. Something to keep in mind, I guess.--31dot 00:41, February 2, 2012 (UTC) Deletion of disputed images Moved to Forum:Deletion of disputed images. Impulse episode and Sulfur issue Just to tell you i have no issue whit him whatsoever, but like i said before i did try to find a solution but to no avail and since you don't want referenced on the Zombie ,(for good reasons), article but you will accept three Zombie references in this article; now you must admit that doesn't make much sense either. And if "Zobie-like" isn't a "personal choice word" then i don't know what is and i'm at a lost.. So i'll just give up the issue and leave the article as it is. Sorry if i seemed to have an issue with Sulfur but my issue was with the article. From now on i'll try and refrain from starting "Talks" and let you Administrators do the change needed to articles who need it.--Captain riggs 15:44, March 20, 2012 (UTC) Now what's wrong really? Hi. I see that you have reverted several of my edits and I fail to see the logic. I usually note down trivia, not unlike those I have been reading all around MA. Each episode has a thorough list of continuity notes, interesting observations and hard to see links or inconsistencies between episodes. So I am enriching them with other details which are not there, and I expect are equally interesting. That's what a wiki is all about. I don't know if there is some "notability" policy which I fail to grasp. My note that Kirk and Spock repeat a similar discussion from another episode doesn't seem more trivial or insignificant than existing notes in this and other articles; such as a line below stating that "This is the only appearance by John Winston in which he has no dialog." I don't know if it's a nitpick or not, but certainly my nitpicks are not unlike what MA is tolerating everywhere Except if me being an unregistered user (which usually means "a random fanboy who just happened to pass by and tends to notice weird things"), unavoidably makes my notes seem to be of different importance from those existing before me. I hope you understand that the impression I gather from you is this: "Trivia adding is considered nitpicking (especially from anon users who have no qualification) so they are summarily removed; but existing trivia are there, because we wrote them and because, well, they have just stayed so far". Another explanation is that MA has tolerated trivia long enough and undergoes a purging period; no more are allowed, until eventually most of the existing ones will be removed too. Another explanation is that I had the bad luck to having been patrolled by an anti-trivialist. Please help me seeing where justice is, because I see none. If MA tolerates "nitpicks" then you should allow users add some too. If it doesn't, then it would be a good idea not just maintaining it, but to make this obvious retroactively. Now allow me to tell you that I am not a random passerby; at least not one of those who just noticed in some episode that Kirk's right sleeve is one mm longer than the left one and decides to write it down. Of course I consider myself an "inclusionist" and I love trivia, which has brought me at odds with people who go by the book, but I have some experience around wikia for several years now and I am as conscious an editor as I could be. Hoping for a compromise, thanks. 02:10, March 23, 2012 (UTC) :I will first say that the fact you are not a registered user is not relevant to what I did. I was only thinking about the article itself; not who made the edit. :Nitpicking is not permitted per the nitpick policy. Your comment about the Eugenics War and WWIII seemed nitpickish to me because it was suggesting an error in the use of the term "World War". The comment about the word irritation seemed nitpickish because it suggests that Spock should have known what it was the second time(and is thus an error). We made a community decision that these kind of comments were not what we were about, unless they can be cited with things like statements from Trek staff or comments from authoritative sources(the TNG Companion, ST Encyclopedia, etc.) I'm certainly open to possible rewordings, but I'm not sure what would be left that is notable without the nitpick aspect. I would suggest that any discussion about this take place on the article's talk page, where I copied your comments to(for that purpose).--31dot 02:20, March 23, 2012 (UTC) :The John Winston statement you mention is not a nitpick, because it is relevant to the production process.--31dot 02:22, March 23, 2012 (UTC) :The nitpick policy came about after much of this site was established, and there might still be some in articles; if you see one, feel free to suggest it for removal. Again, it doesn't have to do with you being an unregistered user.--31dot 02:25, March 23, 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. I did not remember seeing the article on nitpicking policy. As I imagined, it had to do with rules that came forth to remedy things already established, something that tends to happen eventually around the wikis. I understand that being unregistered is not a main factor, but I considered it a possible negative 09:59, March 23, 2012 (UTC)